Code thus framed, the first Article-which is in the nature of a Bill of Rights- - was copied from the Code of Massachusetts; and the list of capital offences was the same, with the additions of incest, and of violence, or outrageous insult, or stubborn disobedience, to parents.1 The Code contains none of the provisions known in NewEngland fable under the name of Blue Laws. 1 A system of written law for Connecticut bears an earlier date. Within four years after the appointment of sion of the laws, in the library of the American Antiquarian Society, is the only complete copy now known to exist. It probably belonged to Davenport. There is an imperfect copy in the Boston Athenæum. The title of the book is, "New-Haven's Settling in New England, and some Laws for Government, published for the Use of that Colony; though some of the Orders intended for Present Convenience may probably be hereafter altered, and, as need requireth, other Laws added." The Titles are arranged in alphabetical order. The Articles of Confederation were now probably printed for the first time. A reprint of the collection is appended to the second volume of Mr. Hoadly's excellent edition of the New-Haven Colonial Records. The chasm in the Records of New Haven Colony between April, 1644, and May, 1653, leaves us in uncertainty whether the code of 1656 was the first essay of the kind. I have suggested (see above, p. 236; comp. N. H. Rec., II. iv.) the probability that some digest of laws for New Haven was made about the year 1648 or 1649. It appears in 1655 (N. H. Rec., II. 146), that the Governor had been “formally desired to view over the laws," &c.; but as, in the full record of the two next preceding years, there is no appearance of an expression of that de sire, it was probably expressed earlier, and not improbably acted on, to some extent. Massachusetts had had a printed code since 1648 (see above, p. 260); and in some particulars, at least, its provisions were adopted, within a year afterwards, by New Haven. (N. H. Rec., I. 464, 494, 499; comp. II. 571, 576.) 1 N. H. Rec., 571, 576-578, 593; see above, p. 29. Unnatural lust had been punished by capital execution in New Haven, as it had hitherto been in no other Colony but Plymouth. Considerations of the methods of interpreting Scripture, and of the theological theories, which were in credit, will suggest explanations of the morbid vigilance expressed in the laws in respect to diabolical and to bestial crimes. In those days, New-England men meant as they professed. Their convictions, covering the whole length and breadth of their creeds, laid a wide basis for imagination and emotion; and the honest, bonâ fide, contemplative believer in that theory of man's nature which is set forth in the Westminster Catechism, logically understood himself to be living in the midst of crimes of dark and mysterious enormity. All but saints were to him moral lepers; and he easily accepted evidence, were it better or worse, of the breaking out of the disease in the most transcendently odious forms. 1650. May. 2 Ludlow to superintend that business, such existing Orders as had the character of permanent statutes had been arranged to the satisfaction of the General Court; and they were accordingly "concluded and established." The titles are disposed in alphabetical order, as in the Code of New Haven; and the Bill of Rights which is prefixed is copied from that which was first adopted in Massachusetts. To the list of capital offences were now added those of smiting, cursing, or stubbornly disobeying, father or mother. Growth of May 17. 4 The Connecticut increased more rapidly than any other of the confederate Colonies, except Massachusetts. settlement at the mouth of Pequot River was acquiring importance, and the General Court made further Connecticut. arrangements for its government; and, in con1649. sideration of its being "a fit and convenient place for future trade," and "that they might leave to posterity the memory of that renowned city from whence they had their transportation,” March 11. they gave it the name of New London. The buildings and works at Saybrook were restored at the public charge. The inconsiderable fish 1658. 1649-1651. 1 See above, p. 235. 2 Conn. Rec., I. 216.- It does not appear that Ludlow, after all, had much to do with this Code. It is merely a compilation of existing laws, with additions from the Code of Massachusetts; and the Court made a grant to the Secretary (Cullick) of "six pounds in part of payment for his great pains in drawing out and transcribing the country orders" (ibid.); while there is no record of an allowance to Ludlow. The Connecticut Code (for which see Conn. Rec., I. 509-563) is a little more full than that of New Haven, the former having seventy-eight titles, while the latter has sixty-six. On the other hand, the Connecticut Bill of Rights is the more concise of the two. Before this time there had been two executions in Connecticut for witchcraft. Goodwife Basset and Goodwife Knapp were the sufferers. (N. H. Rec., II. 77, et seq.) Two executions for the same crime had taken place still earlier in Massachusetts, that of Margaret Jones, of Charlestown, in 1648, and that of Ann Hibbins, in Boston, in 1655. (Winthrop, I. 321; II. 326.) 4 Conn. Rec., I. 185; comp. 208, 221, 292. See above, pp. 233, 234. 5 Conn. Rec., I. 310, 313. The river on which it stood they also called the Thames. • Ibid., 187, 188, 200, 206, 232. 1649. Nov. 7. 1650. June. ing station, called East Hampton, near the eastern end of Long Island, was annexed to the Colony. At the mouth of a little stream which empties into the Sound between Fairfield and Stamford, some twenty families from Hartford made a settlement, to which they gave the name of Norwalk. A spot on the Connecticut, a few miles south of Wethersfield, was occupied by planters from that place and from Hartford, with others from Massachusetts and some just arrived from England; and its Indian name, Mattabeseck, was changed to Middletown.2 Including Southampton and Easthampton, on Long Island, Connecticut had now twelve towns. Seven hundred and seventy-five persons were taxed in the Colony, and their aggregate property was valued at £ 79,073.8 1653. Nov. Connecticut was scarcely less forward than New Haven to promote the conquest of New Netherland. On the reception of intelligence of the arrival of Sedgwick's squadron at Boston, Mr. Welles, Deputy-Governor, acting as Governor in Hopkins's absence, wrote to the 1654. commanders, asking for information as to the June 10. number of men and amount of supplies that were desired, and the appointed place of rendezvous; and assuring them that Connecticut would "with all thankfulness embrace this favor and respect from his Highness, and with all readiness attend the counsel and advice of his commissioners."4 And, as soon as the Court could be Netherland. assembled, Major Mason and Captain Cullick Expedition were despatched to Boston to make arrange- against New ments for the expected campaign. They were authorized to offer the Colony's share of a force of fifteen hundred men, in the proportion determined by 1 Conn. Rec., I. 210. 2 Ibid., 250. 3 Ibid., 307, 308. The two last named towns, as well as New London, June 13. are omitted in these schedules, both of persons and of property. ↑ Hutch. Coll., 253. the Articles of Confederation. In case Massachusetts should refuse to take part in the enterprise, and it should be thought that without her the other Colonies were "able to carry on the design with hopeful fruit of success," Connecticut consented, "rather than the design should fall," to be pledged for the supply of "four or five hundred men, provided they all engaged to be under the command and at the dispose of such commanders" as Mason and Cullick "should approve or appoint." 1 Rhode Island From her position, Connecticut was more exposed than the other Colonies to annoyance from the maprivateers. rauders, whom Rhode Island had commissioned in its zeal for the Commonwealth of England. It has been mentioned,2 that one of them, Thomas Baxter, had occasioned a blockade of Fairfield, by escaping into that port when chased by two Dutch armed vessels. The confederate Colonies were not responsible for Rhode Island, and they could not allow one of their harbors to be closed by the Dutch. The Commissioners Sept. 17. agreed in advising the General Courts to prohibit the entrance of Dutch vessels into their ports without express license from some Magistrate, and in authorizing the inhabitants of Fairfield and its neighborhood to expel, or make prize of, the vessels which had given the offence. Baxter, being arrested in Connecticut, and prosecuted by the owner of the Barnstable vessel which he had captured, was sentenced by the General 1653. 1654. April 6. Court to restore his prize, and to pay heavy damages, besides being fined fifty pounds "for his insufferable reproachful speeches against the chief of that jurisdiction, and his insolent carriages in several particulars." 4 Underhill sailed up the Connecticut to the Dutch house at Hartford, and posted upon it a notice, that, "by per 1 Conn. Rec., I. 259, 260. 2 See above, p. 360. "4 4 Conn. Rec., I. 252, 253; comp. N. H. Rec., II. 48, 50, et seq., 67, 75 3 Records, &c., in Hazard, II. 287,288. -77. mission of the General Court" of Connecticut, he 1653. seized upon it as belonging to "enemies of the June 27. Commonwealth of England." He found purchasers for it in two different parties, one being of Portsmouth, the other of Hartford, and made conveyances of it to both. But the government of Connecticut "sequestered and reserved it,” 2 till a full investigation should be "2 had. The next year, he presented a petition to April 6. the General Court, alleging that they had authorized his seizure of the property, and praying May 17. them to "approve of his sale thereof." But they contradicted his statement, and denied his request.3 1654. 1655. John Win After Thomas Welles and John Webster had each been at the head of the government one year, the want of greater efficiency in the highest office had probably made itself felt, and John Winthrop, of New throp, jr. London, was chosen to be Chief Magistrate. His administration of that office, connected with a 1 Brodhead, History, I. 558. 2 Conn. Rec., I. 254. 3 Ibid., 275. 4 Webster and Cullick left Connecticut soon after, in consequence of the part taken by them in an ecclesiastical controversy. (See below, p. 490.) The former went to Hadley in Massachusetts; the latter to Boston. Welles was Governor again in 1658, the constitution of Connecticut not yet permitting the immediate re-election of the Governor of the preceding year. (See Vol. I. 536.) He was Deputy Governor in 1657 and 1659, in the latter of which years he died. 5 Conn. Rec., I. 297; comp. 301.On the election of Winthrop, the Colony invited him to make Hartford his residence, and offered him the rent of the house formerly occupied by Mr. Haynes. In May, 1647, Winthrop was com Governor. 1657. May 21. missioned by the General Court of Connecticut "to execute the place of a Magistrate at Pequot." (Conn. Rec., I. 164; see above, p. 234.) He had probably not yet determined to detach himself from Massachusetts, of which Colony he continued to be a Magistrate by annual elections. The government of Massachusetts still desired to win him back among them, and offered him inducements to that end. (Mass. Rec., II. 229, 241.) The death of his father, within a year after these proposals, may have had an influence on his decision. In May, 1650 (Ibid., III. 182), his name first disappears from the list of Assistants of Massachusetts. He became a freeman of Connecticut in that month (Conn. Rec., I. 207), and in May, 1651, was chosen to be a Magistrate, to which office he was re-elected, from year to year, till he was promoted to be Governor in 1657. |